Alston v. Dawe, No. G057157 (D4d3 Jul. 27, 2020)
This is an appeal of a granted anti-SLAPP motion in a malicious prosecution case. It’s a bit of a Russian doll surrounding the issue of the merits prong of the analysis, touching on the “favorable termination” element of malicious prosecution and the functioning of collateral estoppel.
Basically, this is case #3 between these parties. Plaintiff here won case #1, wherein it got a ruling in its favor on a Key Issue. Defendant here sued Plaintiff here in case #2, which got dismissed on collateral estoppel grounds because Key Issue had already been determined between the parties. The Plaintiff here sued Defendant here for malicious prosecution.
So the basic question is whether the dismissal of case #2 on collateral estoppel grounds is prima facie evidence of favorable termination, sufficient for Plaintiff to meet her burden on the merits prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis. The Court of Appeal holds it is.
Favorable termination requires a merits-based dismissal. Procedural dismissals—lack of jurisdiction, mootness, standing—don’t count. A prior Court of Appeal opinion said that res judicata was one of those procedural grounds that didn’t give rise to a favorable termination. JSJ L.P. v. Mehrban, 205 Cal.App.4th 1512, 1527 (2012). But the court here declines to follow it, at least under the facts of this case.
As the court explains, collateral estoppel can bind parties to both substantive and procedural rulings from prior litigation. When the prior ruling is a substantive matter decided on the merits, the application of collateral estoppel to dismiss a later cased based on that ruling is on the merits too. So here, where the Key Issue was decided on the merits in case #1, and the fact that it was caused the dismissal of case #2, the dismissal of case #2 was a favorable termination.
Reversed.
That's my case!
ReplyDelete